| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
'except that--
(a) 75 hereditary peers shall be elected as members of the House of Lords in accordance with subsection (2).
(b) 14 hereditary peers shall be elected as members of the House of Lords in accordance with subsection (3).
(c) the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Earl Marshal shall be members of the House of Lords.
(2) The electors for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) shall be the holders of a hereditary peerage.
(3) The electors for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) shall be the members of the House of Lords.
(4) The Secretary of State may by order make such provision about the conduct of the elections under this section as he considers appropriate.
(5) No order under this section shall be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 6, at end add
', unless he or she is the first holder of a hereditary peerage.'.
amendment No. 25, in page 1, line 6, at end insert
'and any transitional arrangement enabling certain hereditary peers to continue their membership of that House shall cease to have effect on the expiry of the period of twelve months from the date of publication of the final report of the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament announced in Command Paper No. 4183'.
Amendment No. 16, in clause 4, page 1, line 14, leave out from 'force' to end of line and insert
'on a date not less than six months after the passing of this Act nominated by the Secretary of State'.
Amendment No. 17, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'Session' and insert 'date'.
Amendment No. 18, in page 1, line 16, at end insert--
'(2A) Prior to nominating a date for the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall make inquiry and lay a report before both Houses of Parliament, setting out the names of all current hereditary peers who have played a significant role in the workings of the House of Lords during the ten years preceding the passing of this Act; and such hereditary peers shall be entitled to remain members of the House of Lords, pending the enactment of proposals for the wider reform of the House of Lords following the report of the Royal Commission and public consultation concerning its proposals.'.
New clause 12--Peerage of Scotland--
'( ) Nothing in this Act shall be taken to prevent sixteen peers from the peerage of Scotland from voting in the House of Lords.'.
Amendment No. 10, in title, line 1, leave out 'End' and insert 'Restrict'.
Mrs. Laing: The amendment would allow 91 hereditary peers to remain as Members of the House of Lords during the so-called interim stage. As hon. Members will be well aware, a compromise to that effect was drawn up by Lord Weatherill, his intention being to secure the continued presence of an independent element in the interim House of Lords. I do not support the hereditary principle. It is time that Labour Members acknowledged that Conservative Members do not seek to amend the Bill to uphold the hereditary rights of peers. We do not: we seek to amend the Bill to uphold democracy itself. For democracy to work, it is essential that Parliament is strong. It is the role of both Houses of Parliament to hold the Government to account. This Government are not concerned about upholding democracy; they are interested only in their own party political advantage and in increasing the power of the Executive by decreasing the power of Parliament. While appearing to argue that they are acting in the name of democracy, the Government are in fact doing the opposite. Their argument is nothing less than a disgraceful sham. They want to appear to strengthen the democratic
process, but the real effect of their proposals to reform the House of Lords will be considerably to weaken our democracy. Removing all independence from the second Chamber will undermine its validity, which will, in turn, weaken its ability to challenge the Government.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): If there is an upper House composed partly of Labour appointees, partly of Conservative appointees and partly of an independent chunk appointed by either party or by other parties, how will the retention of 91 hereditary peers--who will doubtless be mainly Conservative--weaken the democracy of the place? I should have thought that it would enhance it.
8.30 pm
Mrs. Laing: I am talking not about the democracy of the House of Lords, but about the democratic process as a whole. Parliament defends democracy, and it is supposed to hold the Government to account. To do so, both Houses of Parliament must be able to play their own roles in holding the Executive to account. That is why it is important to consider reform of the House of Lords in the context of constitutional reform in general and how Parliament works.
It is all too often forgotten--the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) seems to have forgotten it--that Parliament acts as one entity. I do not suggest that having a seat by appointment or because of who one's father was is democratic in any way. If the second Chamber--whatever form it takes--is strong, the democratic process itself will work better. If it is weak, the democratic process is weakened with it. That idea lies at the heart of what we are discussing.
The Leader of the House would like to appear as the champion of the old socialist ideal, as a revolutionary attacking wealth and privilege. I should be happy to give way to her if she wishes to tell me that I am wrong. The glee with which she announced the clause abolishing the rights of hereditary peers was almost vindictive.
Mr. Letwin:
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most remarkable things said by any Leader of the House at any time was the present Leader's remark that nothing could be worse than the existing Chamber?
Mrs. Laing:
I agree, of course, with my hon. Friend. The Leader of the House also remarked that the Bill was simple, and that remark, too, was totally wrong. The Bill is simple only in the sense that it addresses only part of the issue. It is up to the Opposition to address the whole issue.
The Leader of the House approached the Bill with a certain vindictive pleasure. None the less, I do not challenge the Government's right to take away the voting rights of hereditary peers. Nor do I challenge the principle of doing so; in fact, I agree with it. However, I must challenge the Government's lack of honesty about what they are doing. The Government's plan, as stated in the Bill, is to have, for an indefinite period which could be years, decades or even longer, a second Chamber composed entirely of people who have been appointed and who, therefore, will owe allegiance to those who appointed them.
Amendment No. 2 would include in the interim second Chamber a number of hereditary peers elected by the Members of the House of Lords. Such a system would strengthen the interim House because it would keep within it the element of independence while adding to the legitimacy of the hereditary peers who would remain because their tenure would depend on a double condition: first, their birth and, secondly, their election by the Members of their own House. I am not claiming that that would create a perfect situation, but it is a much better solution than that proposed in the Bill.
There are as many differing points of view about the eventual composition of the second Chamber as there are people expressing them; but almost no one is arguing in the long term for a second Chamber that is entirely appointed, so why on earth should we settle for an entirely appointed interim Chamber? The Government could do--indeed, are likely to do and, I would argue, certainly will do--an awful lot of harm to our country while only the interim second Chamber, which we are now discussing, is in place to hold them to account.
Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough):
Does the hon. Lady accept that it was Lord Cranborne who suggested the idea? Is she distancing herself and the rest of the Tory party from Lord Cranborne's idea?
Mrs. Laing:
No, far from it. I believe that my colleagues whose names are attached to the amendment and I have the support of the vast majority of the Tory party in this House, in another place and across the country. However, it remains to be seen what will happen if there is a vote.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |